Idaho river access laws

[catmaster23]

I'm sure this belongs on the off topic, but the Idaho main seems to get a little more traffic, so here goes. There's been some discussion about Utahs river access laws and Idaho has been referenced a lot as the poster child. I'm not trying to stir the pot, just would like to hear from locals that deal with it everyday, perhaps landowners as well, on how well it works and what the specifics are. On the Utah forum, it tends to get heated, so again, not pot stirring, just trying to get a different perspective. Thanks.
[signature]

[flygoddess]

I grew up with the Snake for a back yard, what is the question? People went up and down the river there. My sisters inlaws had the river run right through there land and there were occasional fishers.
I am not sure what bothers you about this, and I say this as friendly as I can because I do value you as such.
[signature]

[hizah]

Open to public on all waterways. Public access is granted up to the high water mark, going above that can be trespassing depending on the land owner. Need permission to access through private property, open access if it is bordered by BLM. You have access at any public right of way such as a bridge or culvert. Illegal to post or drive off anyone from public land or waters.
[signature]

[cpierce]

You have to enter and exit at a public right of way. You must stay below the high water line except to get around obstructions. That is pretty much it.

Page 8 (55) in this pdf
http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/public/fish...shInfo.pdf

Most don't have a problem with it that I know of.
[signature]

[catmaster23]

I'm just curious how the Idahoans feel about it, that's all, like I stated, just trying to be open minded and get all the info I can from the people. Do they have big problems with littering, property damage, actual unlawful tresspassing ect. What are the pros for those that own land adjacent to the rivers with Idahos current law. I think what bothers me most is I know what I and other landowners deal with already, and I don't want it to get worse. Like I wrote in the other thread, I just wasn't raised that way, if i wanted to go fish or hunt somewhere, I asked, and the times I didn't, well, lets just say I'm lucky to have any of my butt left. I'm just trying hard to be objective and see both sides. I was accused of being ignorant and uninformed on the utah forum, so I am just trying to get informed that's all. Side note, you and you're hubby still need to come up and hit the lil bear this spring, should be good if the fish I caught and saw during the spawn are still around.
[signature]

[flygoddess]

I know you were.
I understand what you are saying, I personally don't feel I should have to ask permission to fish any river, so this has always been a sore spot to me. Plus, those that were threatened and ticketed for fishing a river, I felt this should never have been allowed as it is like the air over head, no "one" owns it.
I can't believe the trash is as huge as made out. Trespassing, I guess that could have been an issue, but given back our rightful waterways, I don't feel this will be an issue or at least not a big one. There will always be the do wrongers.

The problem is, landowners have had this right for quite awhile, and it should have never been. So, now you are asked to make a change, and you are unsure of what to expect.
It is our right to use the rivers, please understand that. I sure miss that here in Utah and a little afraid to venture to new waters because of this law as I don't know who thinks they own what.

Like all the Movie Stars buying all the land in Montana and Idaho They have that right to buy that prime hunting land and ban trespassers, but the rivers and that content no. The birds over head, no, however, if you shoot one and it lands in their yard, you can't go get it and I guess that too could be littering their property.
[signature]

[cpierce]

There will always be litterers and possibly trespassers no matter what the law. There are laws in place against that already.

People drive by in front of our land and dump tons of beer cans and all kind of junk that ends up on our land. I pick it up. People have used the road to drive out here and then break in and steal tools and things also. All that is against the law. But just because some of the public do bad things to my property and use the road for access to it, that doesn't mean that I can put up a gate and no trespassing signs over the road. That's still the public's right of way.
[signature]

[Bmarsh]

Knowing what Idaho's Laws are and such here is my take on landowners and wanting to restrict access like they are in Utah......it is BS. The way Idaho's laws are happen to be how I believe it should be. It's public water that runs adjacent to your property or through it, you buy into that when you purchase the land. It is a package deal. If you want the back yard access then you have to deal with the traffic that is associated with people using that public resource. If that is an issue then I highly suggest buying property that doesn't have waterways running through it. Other wise the out door sports that we enjoy end up be coming an eletist only sport. He who has the cash gets to use something that is a public resource and everyone else gets screwed. Not probably what you are looking to hear as an owner but its a fact of life when you buy property with public access directly adjacent to it that there will be some that are great stewards and you won't ever know that they have been there, and there will be others that leave trash around.

I try to clean up the later to help keep the relations where we have great access. Nothing pisses me off more than seeing all the crap that is left in nature. Usually end up with a couple grocery sacks of garbage in the back of my truck when I would fish the more popular waters.
[signature]

[SagebrushID]

Unless we're talking about a man-made stock pond in the middle of someone's private property, waters should be public for all to enjoy.

Idaho's stream access laws are great. It's nice to live in a state that doesn't prescribe to archaic laws that belong across the pond in England, where a monarchy is still recognized and such oppressive laws originated.
[signature]

[idahoron]

The snake river has a lot of private owned islands. The no trespassing signs are normally posted right on the waters edge in late summer. I would think that the high water water mark would be much higher. I don't go on the islands at all. I was standing in the water and my boat was pushed so the front was touching the sand. I had a guy yell at me for getting off. I told him to call the sheriff I would wait. No cops ever showed up. Ron
[signature]

[deepforks]

catmaster,
i went over to the utah forum and read your posts in that particular thread. i'm not sure what you're looking for here. i do not think you're going to get the answers you're looking for. you say in this thread that you want to be open minded, etc. you sure do sing a whole different tune in the utah thread about this topic. idaho has it right as far as public access on our waterways.
[signature]

[Idaho]

"AMERICAN INDIAN WATER RIGHT SETTLEMENTS"
[size 3][/size]

[size 2]Fort Hall Indian Water Rights Act of 1990 [/size][size 2][/size]


[crazy]
Idaho
[signature]

[Bardic]

I hate to say it but it sounds like the land owners in Utah are incorrect in thinking they own the riverbed (for waters that meet the federal navigation standards). Your right to the land ends at the normal high water mark. It isn't yours to do with as you please. For instance, there have been cases where the river starts eroding away the bank causing the land owner to lose acreage. The owner's only option is to plant vegetation, or place boulders on the bank and wait for the water to drop them naturally.

From reading the Utah thread I would say the farmer who threatened you all those years ago was only partially correct. You can't trespass on his land, and I don't know what the circumstance was, but you had every right to stand at the very edge of the high water line, in the water or on the gravel, whatever the case may be. If the water was too deep then I suppose you could have floated down or made your case to the Sherriff that you were willing to leave as quickly as humanly possible and hoped for leniency.

If people are littering or trespassing above the high water mark, get some video of it and prosecute. That is perfectly within your rights, but understand that most people have respect for land owners if they have respect for us (which I hope is still true).
[signature]

[catmaster23]

Did you read all the posts on that thread? I'd suggest you do if you didn't. I was accused of being un american, un utahn, a european elitist, so yeah I got a little ticked. It was one of those good ol, 1 vs 100 threads. I came over here to get the facts from the people that live with it like I stated in the opening post. You're response seems slightly combative, almost like I have no business asking these questions. I am getting informed for myself so if the law does change maybe I can have an easier time swallowing it, hell maybe even supporting it. Thanks for your response.
[signature]

[cpierce]

I don't think anyone is trying to be combative. We do have an occasional land owner that objects to the river right of ways. Most of them actually seem to be new people that move in from out of state. Many of the farmers etc don't seem to mind and just take it for granted. I have asked for and received permission to cross ground and to fish streams that aren't navigable many times.

The rivers in the past were always public access. Many times they were used in place of the road. Just because we have better roads now and don't need the rivers for transportation doesn't mean that it is no longer a public right. Recreational use is just as justified. As I stated in my previous post, even if I own both sides of a road, I can't deny the public access to that right of way. It doesn't matter if good people use it or bad, it is a right of way. I can only document wrong doing and call the sheriff.

I think we are beginning to see a grab for our rights in many areas. It isn't so much the farmers etc that are trying to avoid damage to their property, it is the very wealthy trying to keep the waters for their exclusive use. How will you feel when all of your favorite fishing waters from streams to reservoirs are bought up by individuals that may come and fish once a year if that? If you want to fish, you will have to join something like a community club fishing lodge so that you can fish the club waters. It has happened in other areas.

Money talks and can buy a lot of things including your rights, if it whispers in the ears of politicians. It may even be made to sound good, and that it helps the little guy land owner.

It is still wrong to take the public's rights, even if some of the public that uses it is scum.
[signature]

[remo_5_0]

I love spending my $$$ in Idaho and Wyoming, they have the river access laws correct...Montana also, I have a hard time even buying my Utah license anymore.
[signature]

[MackayGuy]

I really did try to stay out of this discussion, but I also feel I need to give a bit of the landowners perspective. A lot of what has been said here is absolutely correct. I agree with and abide by the law which allows access to and the use of the public waterways. I also pay taxes on the ground under the water. Yes, in the past myself and all my neighbors were very open about allowing access to the river through our properties.....some asked, some did not. Yes, there were some incidents of property abuse and distruction, but it was few and far between. Now there is much more public pressure on these resources, so the incidents have increased to the point of 'enough is enough'. I watched the majority of landowners in my area start posting no trespassing signs and locking gates. I held out till about a year ago then did the same. I got tired of repeated trespassing and property distruction by folks, who when confronted about the situation proudly quoted their rights to use my property to access what ever they wanted. Gets real old real fast. If your name is on the deed and you help pay the taxes then you have rights on my property. I have no issue with people who use pubic access to gain access to the waterways and I would never challenge anyone who abides by the laws. It seems like no one even has enough respect to ask permission anymore, they just have their interpretation of the law in their head and think they have rights. Government employees who use your property to access public lands are the worst because they think their position grants them power over your property rights. Yes, there are some property owners who think they own it all and can refuse waterway access to those who are legal and within the law. They're just b-holes.
[signature]

[remo_5_0]

Seems like trespass and the public access line is getting blurred. I am no advocate of anyone trespassing on someone's property, if the law states that the public can enter a waterway from a right of way or public access point and stay within the high water mark that is what I would do. I don't want to drive on your road or walk through your land, I want to fish the public waters.
[signature]

[cpierce]

Agree. They all need to stay within the law. Access is only through public access points. It is really nice when land owners allow you to cross their land, but it isn't a right. Permission must be asked or you better be prepared to hike a long way from the closest bridge.

I'm glad you have added your experience here, and I am sorry you have had problems with idiots! Call the sheriff and charge them with trespass. Maybe then they will get a clue.
[signature]

[catmaster23]

Thanks for the post, I appreciate your opinion and also you sharing your first hand experience with this issue. Seems like it all boils down to weeding through the good guys and the B holes as you put it, on both sides. Thanks again.
[signature]